Advertisement

Capturing Geographically-Varying Uncertainty in Earthquake Ground Motion Models or What We Think We Know May Change

  • John Douglas
Part of the Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering book series (GGEE, volume 46)

Abstract

Our knowledge of earthquake ground motions of engineering significance varies geographically. The prediction of earthquake shaking in parts of the globe with high seismicity and a long history of observations from dense strong-motion networks, such as coastal California, much of Japan and central Italy, should be associated with lower uncertainty than ground-motion models for use in much of the rest of the world, where moderate and large earthquakes occur infrequently and monitoring networks are sparse or only recently installed. This variation in uncertainty, however, is not often captured in the models currently used for seismic hazard assessments, particularly for national or continental-scale studies.

In this theme lecture, firstly I review recent proposals for developing ground-motion logic trees and then I develop and test a new approach for application in Europe. The proposed procedure is based on the backbone approach with scale factors that are derived to account for potential differences between regions. Weights are proposed for each of the logic-tree branches to model large epistemic uncertainty in the absence of local data. When local data are available these weights are updated so that the epistemic uncertainty captured by the logic tree reduces. I argue that this approach is more defensible than a logic tree populated by previously published ground-motion models. It should lead to more stable and robust seismic hazard assessments that capture our doubt over future earthquake shaking.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I thank the conference organizers for inviting me to deliver a Theme Lecture. I thank the developers of the ESM strong-motion flat-file 2017 for providing these data. Finally, I thank Dino Bindi, Hilmar Bungum, Fabrice Cotton, Laurentiu Danciu, Ben Edwards and Graeme Weatherill for their comments on a previous version of this study. In an effort not to increase the length of this article, I have chosen not to follow some of their suggestions, despite agreeing with them.

References

  1. Akkar S, Çağnan Z (2010) A local ground-motion predictive model for Turkey and its comparison with other regional and global ground-motion models. Bull Seismol Soc Am 100(6):2978–2995.  https://doi.org/10.1785/0120090367 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al Atik L, Youngs RR (2014) Epistemic uncertainty for NGA-West2 models. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1301–1318.  https://doi.org/10.1193/062813EQS173M CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ambraseys NN, Douglas J, Sarma SK, Smit PM (2005) Equations for the estimation of strong ground motions from shallow crustal earthquakes using data from Europe and the Middle East: horizontal peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration. Bull Earthq Eng 3(1):1–53.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-005-0183-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. AMEC Geomatrix, Inc (2011) Seismic hazard assessment, OPG’s geologic repository for low and intermediate level waste, NWMO DGR-TR-2011-20, revision R000Google Scholar
  5. Ancheta TD, Darragh RB, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Silva WJ, Chiou BSJ, Wooddell KE, Graves RW, Kottke AR, Boore DM, Kishida T, Donahue JL (2014) NGA-West2 database. Earthq Spectra 30(3):989–1005.  https://doi.org/10.1193/070913EQS197M CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atkinson GM (2011) An empirical perspective on uncertainty in earthquake ground motion prediction. Can J Civ Eng 38(9):1002–1015.  https://doi.org/10.1139/L10-120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Atkinson GM, Adams J (2013) Ground motion prediction equations for application to the 2015 Canadian national seismic hazard maps. Can J Civ Eng 40(10):988–998.  https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2012-0544 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Atkinson GM, Bommer JJ, Abrahamson NA (2014) Alternative approaches to modeling epistemic uncertainty in ground motions in probabilistic seismic-hazard analysis. Seismol Res Lett 85(6):1141–1144.  https://doi.org/10.1785/0220140120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barani S, Spallarossa D, Bazzurro P (2009) Disaggregation of probabilistic ground-motion hazard in Italy. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(5):2638–2661.  https://doi.org/10.1785/0120080348 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bazzurro P, Cornell CA (1999) Disaggregation of seismic hazard. Bull Seismol Soc Am 89(2):501–520Google Scholar
  11. Bindi D, Luzi L, Pacor F, Sabetta F, Massa M (2009) Towards a new reference ground motion prediction equation for Italy: update of the Sabetta-Pugliese (1996). Bull Earthq Eng 7:591–608.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-009-9107-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bindi D, Pacor F, Luzi L, Puglia R, Massa M, Ameri G, Paolucci R (2011) Ground motion prediction equations derived from the Italian strong motion database. Bull Earthq Eng 9:1899–1920.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-011-9313-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bindi D, Cotton F, Kotha SR, Bosse C, Stromeyer D, Grünthal G (2017) Application-driven ground motion prediction equation for seismic hazard assessments in non-cratonic moderate-seismicity areas. J Seismol 21(5):1201–1218.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-017-9661-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bommer JJ (2012) Challenges of building logic trees for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Earthq Spectra 28(4):1723–1735.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000079 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bommer JJ, Scherbaum F (2008) The use and misuse of logic trees in probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Earthq Spectra 24(4):997–1009.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2977755 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bommer JJ, Douglas J, Scherbaum F, Cotton F, Bungum H, Fäh D (2010) On the selection of ground-motion prediction equations for seismic hazard analysis. Seismol Res Lett 81(5):783–793.  https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.81.5.783 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bommer JJ, Coppersmith KJ, Coppersmith RT, Hanson KL, Mangongolo A, Neveling J, Rathje EM, Rodriguez-Marek A, Scherbaum F, Shelembe R, Stafford PJ, Strasser FO (2015) A SSHAC level 3 probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for a new-build nuclear site in South Africa. Earthq Spectra 31(2):661–698.  https://doi.org/10.1193/060913EQS145M CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bommer JJ, Stafford PJ, Edwards B, Dost B, van Dedem E, Rodriguez-Marek A, Kruiver P, van Elk J, Doornhof D, Ntinalexis M (2017) Framework for a ground-motion model for induced seismic hazard and risk analysis in the Groningen gas field, The Netherlands. Earthq Spectra 33(2):481–498.  https://doi.org/10.1193/082916EQS138M CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Boore DM, Atkinson GM (2008) Ground-motion prediction equations for the average horizontal component of PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA at spectral periods between 0.01s and 10.0s. Earthq Spectra 24(1):99–138.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2830434 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Boore DM, Stewart JP, Seyhan E, Atkinson GM (2014) NGA-West 2 equations for predicting PGA, PGV, and 5%-damped PSA for shallow crustal earthquakes. Earthq Spectra 30(3):1057–1085.  https://doi.org/10.1193/070113EQS184M CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bozorgnia Y et al (2014) NGA-West2 research project. Earthq Spectra 30(3):973–987.  https://doi.org/10.1193/072113EQS209M CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Budnitz RJ, Apostolakis G, Boore DM, Cluff LS, Coppersmith KJ, Cornell CA, Morris PA (1997) Recommendations for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: guidance on uncertainty and use of experts, NUREG/CR-6372, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. Campbell KW (1981) Near-source attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration. Bull Seismol Soc Am 71(6):2039–2070MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Campbell KW (2003) Prediction of strong ground motion using the hybrid empirical method and its use in the development of ground-motion (attenuation) relations in eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 93(3):1012–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dahle A, Bungum H, Kvamme LB (1990) Attenuation models inferred from intraplate earthquake recordings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 19(8):1125–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Danciu L, Tselentis G-A (2007) Engineering ground-motion parameters attenuation relationships for Greece. Bull Seismol Soc Am 97(1B):162–183.  https://doi.org/10.1785/0120040087 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Danciu L, Kale Ö, Akkar S (2018) The 2014 earthquake model of the Middle East: ground motion model and uncertainties. Bull Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9989-1
  28. Delavaud E, Cotton F, Akkar S, Scherbaum F, Danciu L, Beauval C, Drouet S, Douglas J, Basili R, Sandikkaya MA, Segou M, Faccioli E, Theodoulidis N (2012) Toward a ground-motion logic tree for probabilistic seismic hazard assessment in Europe. J Seismol 16(3):451–473.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10950-012-9281-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Douglas J (2007) On the regional dependence of earthquake response spectra. ISET J Earthq Technol 44(1):71–99Google Scholar
  30. Douglas J (2010a) Assessing the epistemic uncertainty of ground-motion predictions. In: Proceedings of the 9th U.S. National and 10th Canadian conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 219. Earthquake Engineering Research InstituteGoogle Scholar
  31. Douglas J (2010b) Consistency of ground-motion predictions from the past four decades. Bull Earthq Eng 8(6):1515–1526.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-010-9195-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Douglas J (2016) Retrospectively checking the epistemic uncertainty required in logic trees for ground-motion prediction. In: 35th General Assembly of the European Seismological Commission, Abstract ESC2016-63Google Scholar
  33. Douglas J, Boore DM (2017) Peak ground accelerations from large (M≥7.2) shallow crustal earthquakes: a comparison with predictions from eight recent ground-motion models. Bull Earthq Eng 16(1):1–21.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0194-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Douglas J, Jousset P (2011) Modeling the difference in ground-motion magnitude-scaling in small and large earthquakes. Seismol Res Lett 82(4):504–508.  https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.82.4.504 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Douglas J, Smit PM (2001) How accurate can strong ground motion attenuation relations be? Bull Seismol Soc Am 91(6):1917–1923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Douglas J, Suhadolc P, Costa G (2004) On the incorporation of the effect of crustal structure into empirical strong ground motion estimation. Bull Earthq Eng 2(1):75–99.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:BEEE.0000038950.95341.74 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Douglas J, Bungum H, Scherbaum F (2006) Ground-motion prediction equations for southern Spain and southern Norway obtained using the composite model perspective. J Earthq Eng 10(1):33–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Douglas J, Aochi H, Suhadolc P, Costa G (2007) The importance of crustal structure in explaining the observed uncertainties in ground motion estimation. Bull Earthq Eng 5(1):17–26.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-006-9017-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Douglas J, Gehl P, Bonilla LF, Scotti O, Régnier J, Duval A-M, Bertrand E (2009) Making the most of available site information for empirical ground-motion prediction. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(3):1502–1520.  https://doi.org/10.1785/0120080075 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Douglas J, Edwards B, Convertito V, Sharma N, Tramelli A, Kraaijpoel D, Cabrera BM, Maercklin N, Troise C (2013) Predicting ground motion from induced earthquakes in geothermal areas. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103(3):1875–1897.  https://doi.org/10.1785/0120120197 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Douglas J, Ulrich T, Bertil D, Rey J (2014) Comparison of the ranges of uncertainty captured in different seismic-hazard studies. Seismol Res Lett 85(5):977–985.  https://doi.org/10.1785/0220140084 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Edwards B, Douglas J (2013) Selecting ground-motion models developed for induced seismicity in geothermal areas. Geophys J Int 195(2):1314–1322.  https://doi.org/10.1093/gji/ggt310 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gehl P (2017) Bayesian networks for the multi-risk assessment of road infrastructure. PhD thesis, University of London (University College London)Google Scholar
  44. Goda K, Aspinall W, Taylor CA (2013) Seismic hazard analysis for the U.K.: sensitivity to spatial seismicity modelling and ground motion prediction equations. Seismol Res Lett 84(1):112–129.  https://doi.org/10.1785/0220120064 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Goulet CA, Bozorgnia Y, Kuehn N, Al Atik L, Youngs RR, Graves RW, Atkinson GM (2017) NGA-East ground-motion models for the U.S. Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Maps, PEER Report no. 2017/03. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  46. Joyner WB, Boore DM (1981) Peak horizontal acceleration and velocity from strong-motion records including records from the 1979 Imperial Valley, California, earthquake. Bull Seismol Soc Am 71(6):2011–2038Google Scholar
  47. Kale Ö, Akkar S (2017) A ground-motion logic-tree scheme for regional seismic hazard studies. Earthq Spectra 33(3):837–856.  https://doi.org/10.1193/051316EQS080M CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kotha SR, Bindi D, Cotton F (2016) Partially non-ergodic region specific GMPE for Europe and Middle-East. Bull Earthq Eng 14(4):1245–1263.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9875-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kulkarni RB, Youngs RR, Coppersmith KJ (1984) Assessment of confidence intervals for results of seismic hazard analysis. In: Proceedings of eighth world conference on earthquake engineering, San Francisco, 21–28 July 1984, 1, pp 263–270Google Scholar
  50. Lanzano G, Puglia R, Russo E, Luzi L, Bindi D, Cotton F, D’Amico M, Felicetta C, Pacor F, ORFEUS WG5 (2017) ESM strong-motion flat-file 2017. Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia (INGV), Helmholtz-Zentrum Potsdam Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum (GFZ), Observatories & Research Facilities for European Seismology (ORFEUS). PID: 11099/ESM_6269e409-ea78-4a00-bbee-14d0e3c39e41_flatfile_2017Google Scholar
  51. Musson RMW (2012) On the nature of logic trees in probabilistic seismic hazard assessment. Earthq Spectra 28(3):1291–1296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. National Cooperative for the Disposal of RadioactiveWaste (NAGRA) (2004) Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Swiss nuclear power plant sites (PEGASOS Project) prepared for Unterausschuss Kernenergie der Überlandwerke (UAK), Final report Vols. 1/6, 2557 pp., to be obtained on request at swissnuclear by writing to info@swissnuclear.chGoogle Scholar
  53. Petersen MD, Moschetti MP, Powers PM, Mueller CS, Haller KM, Frankel AD, Zeng Y, Rezaeian S, Harmsen SC, Boyd OS, Field N, Chen R, Rukstales KS, Luco N, Wheeler RL, Williams RA, Olsen AH (2014). Documentation for the 2014 update of the United States national seismic hazard maps, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2014–1091, 243 p. https://dx.doi.org/10.333/ofr20141091Google Scholar
  54. Power M, Chiou B, Abrahamson N, Bozorgnia Y, Shantz T, Roblee C (2008) An overview of the NGA project. Earthq Spectra 24(1):3–21.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.2894833 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rietbrock A, Strasser F, Edwards B (2013) A stochastic earthquake ground-motion prediction model for the United Kingdom. Bull Seismol Soc Am 103(1):57–77.  https://doi.org/10.1785/0120110231 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sabetta F, Pugliese A (1987) Attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration and velocity from Italian strong-motion records. Bull Seismol Soc Am 77:1491–1513Google Scholar
  57. Sammon JW (1969) A nonlinear mapping for data structure analysis. IEEE Trans Comput C18(5):401–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Savy JB, Foxall W, Abrahamson N, Bernreuter D (2002) Guidance for performing probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for a nuclear plant site: example application to the southeastern United States, NUREG/CR-6607. Livermore, Lawrence Livermore National LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
  59. Scherbaum F, Delavaud E, Riggelsen C (2009) Model selection in seismic hazard analysis: an information-theoretic perspective. Bull Seismol Soc Am 99(6):3234–3247.  https://doi.org/10.1785/0120080347 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Scherbaum F, Kuehn NM, Ohrnberger M, Koehler A (2010) Exploring the proximity of ground-motion models using high-dimensional visualization techniques. Earthq Spectra 26(4):1117–1138.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3478697 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sedaghati F, Pezeshk S (2017) Partially nonergodic empirical ground-motion models for predicting horizontal and vertical PGV, PGA, and 5% damped linear acceleration response spectra using data from the Iranian plateau. Bull Seismol Soc Am 107(2):934–948.  https://doi.org/10.1785/0120160205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Somerville PG, McLaren JP, Saikia CK, Helmberger DV (1990) The 25 November 1988 Saguenay, Quebec, earthquake: source parameters and the attenuation of strong ground motions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 80(5):1118–1143Google Scholar
  63. Spudich P, Joyner WB, Lindh AG, Boore DM, Margaris BM, Fletcher JB (1999) SEA99: a revised ground motion prediction relation for use in extensional tectonic regimes. Bull Seismol Soc Am 89(5):1156–1170Google Scholar
  64. Stafford PJ (2015) Variability and uncertainty in empirical ground-motion prediction for probabilistic hazard and risk analyses. In: Perspectives on European earthquake engineering and seismology, Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering, vol 39. Springer, Cham, p 97.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16964-4_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stepp JC, Wong I, Whitney J, Quittmeyer R, Abrahamson N, Toro G, Youngs R, Coppersmith K, Savy J, Sullivan T, members YMPSHAP (2001) Probabilistic seismic hazard analyses for ground motions and fault displacement at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Earthq Spectra 17(1):113–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stewart JP, Douglas J, Javanbarg M, Abrahamson NA, Bozorgnia Y, Boore DM, Campbell KW, Delavaud E, Erdik M, Stafford PJ (2015) Selection of ground motion prediction equations for the global earthquake model. Earthq Spectra 31(1):19–45.  https://doi.org/10.1193/013013EQS017M CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Toro GR (2006) The effects of ground-motion uncertainty on seismic hazard results: examples and approximate results. In: Annual meeting of the seismological society of America.  https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.1322.2007
  68. Trifunac MD (1976) Preliminary analysis of the peaks of strong earthquake ground motion – dependence of peaks on earthquake magnitude, epicentral distance, and recording site conditions. Bull Seismol Soc Am 66(1):189–219Google Scholar
  69. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) (2012) Practical implementation guidelines for SSHAC level 3 and 4 hazard studies, NUREG 2117 (Rev 1), Division of Engineering Office, USAGoogle Scholar
  70. Weatherill G, Danciu L, Crowley H (2013), Future directions for seismic input in European design codes in the context of the seismic hazard harmonisation in Europe (SHARE) project. In: Vienna Congress on Recent Advances in Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Paper no 494Google Scholar
  71. Woessner J, Laurentiu D, Giardini D, Crowley H, Cotton F, Grünthal G, Valensise G, Arvidsson R, Basili R, Demircioglu MB, Hiemer S, Meletti C, Musson RW, Rovida AN, Sesetyan K, Stucchi M, The SHARE Consortium (2015) The 2013 European seismic hazard model: key components and results. Bull Earthq Eng 13(12):3553–3596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Yenier E, Atkinson GM (2015) Regionally adjustable generic ground-motion prediction equation based on equivalent point-source simulations: application to central and eastern North America. Bull Seismol Soc Am 105(4):1989–2009.  https://doi.org/10.1785/0120140332 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of StrathclydeGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations